Peters

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT PETERS, Case No. 23-cv-05602-VC

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

v. COMPEL ARBITRATION

GUARANTEED RATE, INC., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 54 Defendants.

Guaranteed Rate’s motion to compel individual arbitration is denied. This order assumes the reader’s familiarity with the facts of the case, the parties’ arguments, and the applicable law. While there is no dispute that courts must enforce valid arbitration agreements according to their terms, if a court determines an agreement to arbitrate was unconscionable at the time it was made, it may refuse to enforce the agreement. See AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 340 (2011). For an arbitration agreement to be invalid, there must be both procedural and substantive unconscionability. See Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Services, Inc., 24 Cal. 4th 83, 114 (2000). Here, there was some measure of procedural unconscionability. First, it was a contract of adhesion whereby Peters had little ability to negotiate. See, e.g., Chavarria v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 733 F.3d 916, 923 (9th Cir. 2013). Second, there was an…